Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique
Products & Services On Earth!

1989 Alaska Oil Spill Cleanup Workers Illness
6-18-10

ATTENTION 1989 ALASKAN OIL SPILL BEACH

CLEANUP WORKERS - PLEASE MAKE CONTACT:

The firm of Barnett and Lerner is able to represent anyone
who was exposed to the poison vapors. I invite you to visit their web site http://www.barnettandlerner.com sign
on as clients, and allow them to represent your interest against VECO.

This section has been added because of the contact made
by workers on the Alaskan oil spill cleanup. It seems that there have been
many deaths and even more have sickness who suffer with the same symptoms.
Please read the stories below.

MERLE SAVAGE:

My name is Merle Savage, and I worked extensively as
a female general foreman in Task Force One, during the oil recovery project
in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1989. My name during that summer was
Bailey; however, in 1994 I obtained a divorce and retained my former name
of Savage. This is why any one that worked the cleanup was unable to locate
me until now.

Between May 5-September 15, 1989 I worked for Veco which
was the company that was contracted by Exxon to supply boats, equipment,
and personnel for the oil cleanup. The first weeks I cleaned the beaches
with a 5 inch hose on my shoulder spraying hot water onto oily rocks. The
spray mixed with crude oil was always coming up into our faces. Respirators
were not available only paper masks. We were always covered with crude
oil. On the beaches there was no way to wash our hands before eating and
it was impossible not to get the crude oil on our food. The work day was
anywhere from 12-16 hours a day, 7 days a week. We faced each day suffering
from the Valdez Crud, which was like an extreme flu, with chills, fever,
vomiting, headaches, and respiratory infections with chronic coughing that
lingered throughout the 4 months.

After a few weeks I earned the position of general foreman.
My first assignment as general foreman was the Bering Trader, with 160
personnel; after my first R&R I was general foreman on the Foss 180,
until it was demobilized and then I was general foreman on the DB-100 a
derrick barge that housed 0ver 200 workers, until September 15, when the
cleanup was ended.

One of my responsibility on the berthing barges (housing
boats) was to keep abreast of all personnel entries and exits of the boat
and to oversee the de-contamination area. I maintained a crew of 6-12 people
on the different boats, or barges that I was assigned to, who worked every
day scrubbing rain gear with products like Simple Green and Citro clean
and De-Solv-it. On the DB-100 when the workers came aboard the barge they
would walk up stairs to the top of a tank that was about 12 feet, with
grates covering the top, where their boots would be sprayed with hot water
to rinse off the crude oil. The steam rising above the area with the fumes
from the oil was a constant mist over the area where workers reported and
took off their rain gear every day. Inside the connex trailers, rubber
boots and plastic rain gear were hung after being cleaned with more De-Solv-it,
at which time a gas power heater at the end of the trailer was turned on
to blow heat and dry the gear. Because we were led to believe that Exxon
had chemists who would oversee the chemical cleanup procedures, we were
assured that the cleaning chemicals used was harmless.

There was always a line to visit the Doctor on board,
but he only had limited medicine to offer, which was of little good to
us. It was difficult to work daily and tolerate the conditions that we
suffered, while working on the cleanup. I fell and injured my lower back,
and was flown to the USS Juneau nearby for x-rays, and was never informed
of the outcome. Upon returning to Anchorage after September, I was unable
to sit in a straight position and continued to have pain in my back and
lower spine. In 1990 I had x-rays where my Doctor discovered that my coccyx
was broken. Surgery was performed to have the broken piece, which had become
inflamed, removed.

All of my life I had been in great health and had endless
energy. However, after returning from the oil spill cleanup I began to
experience prolonged respiratory ailments similar to the "Valdez Crud"
I had while on the cleanup. At first I assumed that living in the Anchorage
weather gave me the reason of always having a cold, the flu or sinus infections,
to the point of the Doctor prescribing allergy shots in an effort to help.
There was always a cough which extended into bronchial infections. Along
with the lungs, respiratory, sinus problems there was a stomach issue which
eventually expanded to the entire digestion tract. I had always had a strong
stomach and could eat anything without problems. But this was something
new for me and I began to see the breakdown of my general health. My condition
grew increasingly worse without explanation, so in 1994 I decided to leave
my Real Estate business in Anchorage and relocate to a warmer climate thinking
it would be healthy for me.

I arrived in Las Vegas to be closer to my family. I began
attending Real Estate School, but for the most part found myself struggling
to attend classes. After passing the test I left my license inactive, because
I couldn't commit to a full time job. In the mean time my body became riddled
with pain to the point that at times I couldn't even get into a tub for
a bath. Walking, bending and simply moving my limbs was painful every day,
all day. This combined with the continuing respiratory condition, became
unbearable. At one point I was taken to the emergency room after my body
had swollen to the point of not being able to move at all. In 1998 I had
angioplasty in two arteries in my heart. I struggled with recovery for
a year, and then swelling took over my body, and dominated my every movement
with pain. Because of my declining immune system over the past 19 years,
my health has deterorated into heart problems, with angioplasty, chronic
fatigue with muscle and joint pain, digestive problems, respiratory complications,
cataracts in both eyes, Rheumatoid Arthritis and the latest discovery a
mass on my liver. I do not smoke or drink, and have never had Hepatitis,
so the doctors are questioning the reason for the liver problem.

I was forced to retire from a family owned business in
2002 for health reasons. I could no longer get through and complete a work
day, not even with reduced hours. I continued going from one medication
to another without relief. I was in the hospital twice with Pneumonia.
The flu was a constant yearly occurrence that would last for weeks usually
leading to a bronchial infection. At times I could see no way out of my
predicament.

I was put in contact with Riki Ott, PhD in October 2007,
and she sent me several of her books which help explain about the toxic
materials that were used during the cleanup. Since then I have been in
touch with workers who have contacted me and learned that there are many
of us who are suffering from the same health issues.

I have been in touch with Riki Ott, PhD at www.soundtruth.info
and Margaret Diann at www.valdezlink.com who have been in contact with
workers who were on the Alaskan oil spill cleanup in 1989. Some have died
with the same complications that I have, and others are extremely sick.
Only after speaking with someone who knows the health issues pertaining
to the toxic hot water spraying that was conducted on the beaches, did
I have answers as to why I have suffered for 19 years, but there is no
way to repair the damage that has been done to my body.

Please contact this site if you worked on the cleanup
and have had any of these Symptoms, or know of someone who has been sick
since the oil spill cleanup.

LA TIMES:

EXXON SPILL'S CLEANUP WORKERS SHARE YEARS OF CRIPPLING
ILLNESS:

LA Times

November 5, 2001

By KIM MURPHY

Times Staff Writer

VALDEZ, Alaska -- The toll of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil
spill is a sadly familiar one: dead birds, sea otters, harbor seals--all
victims of the oil tanker that ran over a reef late one March night and
drained 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound.

There are others whom almost no one talks about, although
unlike the birds, most of them are still alive. They are the people who
scraped oil off the beaches, skimmed it off the top of the water, hosed
it off rocks.* Workers who stood in the brown foam 18 hours a day, who
came back to their sleeping barges with oil matted in their hair, ate sandwiches
speckled with oil, steered boats through a brown hydrocarbon haze that
looked like the smog from hell.

After that summer, some found oil traces in their lungs,
in their blood cells, in the fatty tissue of their buttocks. They got treated
for headaches, nausea, chemical burns and breathing problems, and went
home. But some never got well.

Steve Cruikshank of Wasilla, Alaska, has headaches that
go on for days. Two years ago, he was hospitalized when his lungs nearly
stopped working. "The doctor said, 'I'm going to give you the strongest
antibiotic known to man, and you're either going to survive or not survive.
I don't know what's wrong with you.' What's wrong is, I haven't felt right
since that oil spill."

John Baker of Kelso, Wash., has had nosebleeds "like
gushers" that won't go away and growths in his lungs. "They say
generally that people who work in underground mines and stuff get this
kind of thing. But the only thing like that I ever worked on was the oil
spill."

The lungs of Tim Burt of Seldovia, Alaska, were coated
with oil while he was steam-cleaning oil tanks. As his lungs began to fail,
he got wrenching headaches. None of the painkillers was strong enough.
"'Just kill me,' he'd say.'I can't stand the pain anymore,' "recalls
his sister, Sandy Elvsaas. Burt died in 1995 of a drug overdose. "He
figured he had nothing to lose. He was dead already."

These people all have one thing in common. They were
healthy when they arrived in Prince William Sound for a summer of hard
work and good pay. They were sick when they left.

"There appear to be hundreds, maybe even thousands,
of workers that were affected negatively, probably by their exposure to
chemicals used in the cleanup process," said Anchorage attorney Michael
Schneider, who is teaming with Westlake Village lawyer Ed Masry to take
a new look at the 15,000 workers from all over the world who cleaned up
the worst oil disaster in U.S. history.

Although no one has begun to document the number of workers
affected, at least two dozen have gone to court with toxic injury claims
in recent years. Among workers' compensation cases filed by oil spill workers,
34 claimed poisoning, while 264 claimed respiratory problems and 19 had
injuries to the nervous system. About 60 listed petroleum as the source
of injury or illness.

Cruikshank and Baker, among others, volunteered information
about their health problems in a Times review of dozens of Exxon workers
who, according to internal company documents, reported health problems
ranging from sore throats to bronchitis and pneumonia during the cleanup.
Other cases were obtained from court records and interviews with families.

Lawyers believe the actual number of injuries may be
far greater than what has been reported so far. Many, they said, have never
associated things like headaches, cancer, rashes, liver and kidney problems
to a chemical exposure that happened more than a decade ago.

"Chemical poisoning can cause . . . health problems
that manifest as many different symptoms," Los Angeles legal investigator
Erin Brockovich said in a letter sent last week to public interest groups
in Alaska, urging potential victims to come forward.

Brockovich, who works for Masry's law firm, successfully
investigated Groundwater contamination by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
in the town of Hinkley, Calif., in a case settled in 1996.

Exxon, now ExxonMobil, says the cleanup operation was
"remarkably safe" and involved a substance -- crude oil -- which
is of very low toxicity after a few days of weathering. "Years of
study of refinery workers and others in the oil industry have demonstrated
that crude oil can be worked with safely," the company said. It added
that fewer than 25 workers have filed suit for alleged exposures.

"Eight of those claims have been dismissed by the
courts, and seven have been settled."

Public health officials say there was no sign of a health
threat to cleanup workers, though they admit they never had access to data
that would have answered the question conclusively. Investigators for the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health said they were not
able to conduct detailed surveys of worker illnesses, and said it was virtually
impossible to detect signs of chemical exposure in workers after the cleanup
was over. But most of the air samples they took detected only trace amounts
of the most dangerous toxins, NIOSH said in its report.

The Valdez cleanup involved strong solvents in addition
to the crude oil, which gives off extremely hazardous fumes when it is
fresh. Even weathered oil contains some hazardous metals and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, a group of over 100 compounds, some of
which can cause cancer. These materials could have entered workers' lungs
as a mist or been absorbed through their skin when they hosed down contaminated
beaches, some experts say.

But how many suffered health effects may never be known,
in part because Exxon and its cleanup contractor, VECO Inc., denied government
investigators access to medical records, saying at the time they were too
"overwhelmed" to get the data together.

Some of the illness statistics showed up years later,
in a confidential document unearthed in court records. It showed that a
large number of workers visited clinics with upper-respiratory complaints--a
potential warning flag of chemical exposure. Exxon concluded they were
a result not of chemical poisoning but a viral illness--eliminating any
obligation to report the cases to the government and set up a long-term
health-monitoring program.

"The people in charge of it tried to get the records,
and had trouble doing it. And for reasons I don't know, for some reason
NIOSH didn't press its authority to get those records," said Mitchell
Singal, who was NIOSH's medical officer during the oil spill.

In all, there were 6,722 patient visits for respiratory
illness. While some workers may have gone to the clinic more than once,
it potentially means that 40% of the work force had respiratory problems
severe enough to see a doctor.

John Middaugh, Alaska's state epidemiologist, said the
state health department attempted to get viral cultures of sick oil workers
from VECO to see if they matched known viruses circulating in the state.
But they were only given 17.

VECO officials say they have no recollection now of anyone
denying access to medical records. "There wasn't any time our company
took a position not to cooperate," said Jamie Slack, vice president
for human resources.

Carl Reller, a biochemist who worked as an environmental
quality control consultant for the cleanup contractors, sat in on many
of the key planning sessions. He said Exxon lobbied successfully to avoid
having the spill designated a hazardous waste cleanup, which would have
required workers to have 40 hours of training in how to manage the dangerous
materials they would be handling. Federal officials concurred that, given
the reduced toxicity of the weathered oil, four hours' training was adequate.

"The decision was based on a conservative premise
and not revisited," Reller said. "Was this because of legitimate
oversight, incompetence, conspiracy, cost cutting or negligence? Based
on my experience, I would say all of the above."

NIOSH agreed with Exxon's assessment that a virus was
likely responsible for the respiratory problems, which affected not only
cleanup workers, but office personnel and even lawyers.

Middaugh agrees. He said federal investigators took exhaustive
air and water samples to make sure workers weren't being endangered. "It
was concluded there was no risk," he said, "as long as there
was meticulous adherence to standards developed by the company and NIOSH
and OSHA."

The problem, say many of those studying the worker health
issue, is that adherence to safety standards was far from meticulous.

Respirators often weren't available, or workers didn't
wear them, which meant dangerous chemicals could be inhaled. Many didn't
wear goggles, which allowed chemicals to be absorbed through the eyes.
Gloves were often discarded because they didn't fit or got in the way,
leaving the skin exposed to absorb toxics.

"Nobody complied with any of the health and safety
rules, and everybody turned a blind eye," said Robert J. Gryder, a
Coast Guard safety officer at the spill who has worked for decades in the
field of hazardous materials handling and training. "They were issuing
rain suits [as protective gear], and a rain suit is worthless as protective
equipment except for one chemical: water."

"In 1989, we did not know what the adverse health
effects would be of that exposure to Prudhoe Bay crude oil," Gryder
said. "We simply didn't know, and we still don't know."

Ailments Range From Cataracts to Lung Cancer

Phyllis LaJoie had worked for years in Alaska's oil fields,
and volunteered to work in Prince William Sound after the spill as a way
of paying back. "I felt responsible when the spill happened,"
she said.

A former seal hunter and construction worker, LaJoie
was put in the decontamination unit, where she cleaned oily coats, boots
and gloves overnight.

"Of course, we were steaming all that stuff into
our lungs," she said.

Later, she cleaned up beaches. "They ran out of
equipment like masks, and they told us you could go home, or you could
stay and work without it. We ended up with little paper masks."

LaJoie and almost everyone around her had a constant
cough and runny nose. She went back to Hawaii, but couldn't seem to shake
the illness. "I just kept getting sicker and sicker. Breathing and
sinus, stomach, everything."

Finally, she was diagnosed with diabetes, along with
emphysema, asthma and an enlarged liver. She has a bacterial overgrowth
in her lower intestine.

"My goodness," she said, "this thing has
ruined my life."

Randy Lowe, a commercial fisherman from Soldotna, Alaska,
contracted his own boat to help collect oil during the cleanup for $600
a day.

"Oil was everywhere, and every single day, I would
get covered with it," he said. "When I got done loading a boom,
there'd be a foot of oil in the bottom of my boat, and I'd just shovel
it out. You'd drink sodas that had oil on it, you'd smoke a cigarette,
it had oil on it, if you ate a sandwich, it had oil on it.

"When I went out there, I was totally, 100% healthy,"
Lowe said. "Between 1990 and '97 I've been in the hospital 58 times.
I've had pancreatitis, liver problems, spleen problems. I had a pancreas
attack in '97, I went into septic shock and finally my body shut down.
I was in a coma for 52 days, and after that I had to learn all over again
how to walk, read and talk."

Lowe figures his medical bills, paid almost entirely
by Medicaid, have reached $1.5 million. And he still is unable to work--too
tired, can't concentrate enough.

"I went from making $55,000, $60,000 a year to drawing
welfare. That was a pretty hard thing to swallow for me," he said.
"I'm only 41 years old. I shouldn't be in the shape I'm in."

Jim Reynolds of Hampton, Va., was a mechanic on several
oil-skimming boats. He had been working for three months when he woke up
covered in a swollen, itchy rash, diagnosed as a reaction to the oil.

"And the thing is, it never really went away. Whenever
I get hot or sweaty and irritable, then it comes back."

Riki Ott, a marine biologist from Cordova, Alaska, who
has worked for years to document safety and environmental issues related
to the spill, was one of the first to realize that the stories of health
problems were similar.

"Back in 1989, I had a number of friends call me
and say their son or daughter had come in from the oil spill cleanup on
a break and their urine was black,"Ott said. "And what concerns
me is every year since the spill I have been getting calls from people,
and they all have this breathing you can hear, and they all say they're
sick, and they say, 'You know, I think it's from the work I did on the
oil spill.'"

After talking to more than a dozen such people, Ott began
to suspect it was no coincidence that all of them were sick. She flew to
Texas to meet with Dr. William Rea, who had treated many former cleanup
workers and believed many of them were suffering the cumulative effects
of chemical exposure to oil and solvents. Eventually, Ott contacted Masry
and Schneider and persuaded them to try to find more injured workers and
file lawsuits on their behalf.

Few of the previous lawsuits filed against Exxon ever
went anywhere, including suits filed by LaJoie and Lowe, which were dismissed
before going to trial. Experts like Rea were countered by medical experts
put forward by Exxon, who said workers suffered no significant medical
damage, or if they did, it could have come from anything. Stubblefield
hasn't worked since. He gasps when he breathes, gets spasms when he is
exposed to perfume, cigarette smoke, truck exhaust. "He'll never breathe
right again. Never," said his former wife, Melissa Stubblefield. "If
he even starts to laugh, he gets to coughing so he gasps for air."

All Safety Procedures Followed, Exxon Says.

Most health officials remain unconvinced that the cleanup
left anyone sick.

"Right after the spill occurred; there was a tremendous
focus on the potential toxicity of the oil. There was a question that if
the oil contained substances that could potentially harm workers on a long-term
basis, or on a severe short-term basis, and induce sterility or cancer
or birth defects, then it would be unethical to undertake cleanup at all,"
recalled Middaugh, the state epidemiologist.

"But in a very short period of time, all of the
parties, NIOSH, the American Federation of Labor, OSHA, all looked at it
and said, this oil has not been refined, it's naturally occurring crude
oil, and under proper conditions of worker safety, of injury prevention,
with personal protective equipment, training and oversight, there should
be no component of the oil that should provide any toxicity that would
induce any of these long-term problems," he said.

Singal also doubts there were long-term health threats.
"Most of the illnesses were, as far as we could determine at the time
. . . associated with living in close quarters," he said.

"We kept hearing about chronic effects later on.
I couldn't think of any reason why it would have been related to the cleanup
activity. But I can't say one way or another, because we never looked into
it."

In Exxon's view, one of the most important stories of
the cleanup is what didn't happen: the workers in heavy gear who didn't
fall into the water and drown, who didn't suffer hypothermia or get injured
by heavy equipment.

"Safety was the No. 1 concern. We took all the proper
safety procedures to protect workers," said company spokesman Tom
Cirigliano. "We have paid more than $300 million to more than 11,000
Alaskans and to others who were directly affected by the spill. This is
not a company that by any sense of the imagination ran and hid."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material
the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes
a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

RIKI OTT, PhD:

Author - Public Speaker - Marine Toxicologist

Dr. Riki Ott is a dynamic, passionate speaker who combines
scientific research with wisdom from the heart. She offers contemporary
problems, ripe for class or group projects, and inspires practical use
of academics for activism.

LECTURES

From Academics to Activism: Making a Difference from
the Front Line of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Oil is far more toxic than
most people realize. Dr. Ott speaks about the ongoing effects of the Exxon
Valdez oil spill, its worldwide ramifications for humans and the environment,
and the on-going corporate coverup of oil's long-term effects to people
and wildlife. Paradigm shifts in oil toxicity to humans and wildlife are
further discussed in the award-winning Sound Truth and Corporate Myth$
(2005), now available for course adoption. Sound and Corporate Myth$ may
be ordered at www.sundtruth.info

LETTER FROM RIKI OTT, PHD TO Congressman Waxman - October
29, 2007

Riki Ott, PhD

P.O. Box 1460

Cordova, Alaska 99574

907.424.3915

www.soundtruth.info - info@soundtruth.info

Congressman Henry Waxman

Chairman, House Oversight

and Government Reform Committee

2204 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Downstream Health Effects of Oil Production

Dear Congressman Waxman,

I am sending a complimentary copy of my book, Sound Truth
and Corporate Myth$, on the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS)
on workers and wildlife in response to your committee hearings on U.S.
energy industries.

I urge you to also look at the downstream costs of oil
production on cleanup workers, public health, and the environment. Two
people who testified at your October 31, 2007, hearing-Dr. Theo Coburn
and Dr. Daniel Teitelbaum-are featured in Sound Truth. There is proof that
the 1989 cleanup harmed the health of thousands of cleanup workers; that
Exxon was aware of this harm; and that government regulators were misled
by Exxon. For example:

p. 12 shows the MSDS for crude oil and chemical products
used on the EVOS cleanup (Note products that contain the human health hazard
2-butoxyethanol specifically warn to keep product out of waterways: Why
were these products used in Prince William Sound?)

p. 57 Exxon's clinical data showing a total of 6,722
upper respiratory "infections" were reported during the 1989
cleanup (I obtained these data before court records were sealed.)

p. 450 Exxon's air quality monitoring data showing workers
were overexposed to oil vapors, mists, and particulates as well as a variety
of chemical products (I also obtained these data before court records were
sealed.)

I have been working to hold Exxon and the federal government
accountable for chemical injury to EVOS cleanup workers ever since workers
first started calling me in May 1989. Exxon's worker safety program failed
to adequately protect cleanup workers and it is likely literally thousands
(est. 3,000 from Yale survey, p. 164) are suffering chronic health problems
stemming from the EVOS cleanup. Given the chronic illnesses stemming from
the cleanup, the "Valdez Crud" was likely symptomatic of a chemical
poisoning epidemic caused by breathing oily particulates generated by the
high-pressure wash-not simple "colds and flu" as Exxon medical
doctors claimed.

I have also contacted Congressmen John Dingell (Oversight
Investigation Committee) and George Miller (House Education and Labor Committee)
about this matter (letter attached). I urge you to consider removing the
2-year statute of limitations for filing toxic torts in hazardous waste
cleanups retroactive to the Exxon Valdez cleanup. I welcome the opportunity
to speak with you about remedial action for past workers-and proactive
steps to safeguard health of future cleanup workers.

Enclosed please find a complimentary copy of my book,
Sound Truth and Corporate Myth$, on the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil
spill (EVOS) on workers and wildlife. I am an independent researcher and
author. I am sending it in response to a question you asked of Diann Hursh.
Yes, there is proof that the 1989 cleanup harmed the health of thousands
of cleanup workers-and that Exxon was aware of this harm. For example:

p. 12 shows the MSDS for crude oil and chemical products
used on the EVOS cleanup (Note products that contain the human health hazard
2-butoxyethanol specifically warn to keep product out of waterways: Why
were these products used in Prince William Sound?)

p. 57 Exxon's clinical data showing a total of 6,722
upper respiratory "infections" were reported during the 1989
cleanup (I obtained these data before court records were sealed.)

p. 450 Exxon's air quality monitoring data showing workers
were overexposed to oil vapors, mists, and particulates as well as a variety
of chemical products (I also obtained these data before court records were
sealed.)